Boulder woman disturbed to discover police regularly enter unsecured homes

[hustleman]

Hustleman. Not sure if I've missed it before but where do you work? PM me if needed.

Arlington

[Forever_frost]

Well if the court upholds it then isn't that the authority to act? What other recourse beside revolution is there?

No, it's not. The recourse is citizens refusing to recognize your authority to violate the constitutional rights of themselves and others. If citizens stood up to governmental agents for natural born rights we wouldn't have had internment or mass genocide. Laws are often created and upheld by government to give themselves more and more power yet you wouldn't stand for a citizen engaging in that same action over you.

[FastFord19]

Hustleman. Not sure if I've missed it before but where do you work? PM me if needed.

[hustleman]

Get out of here with that nonsense...who are we gonna vilify now? We need you to be a JBT so we can vent our frustrations out on you...not a normal guy with a badge.

Lol. Totally understandable. Anything to minimize your pain. Hahaha. Fuck everyone's rights. They are abolished as of now

[davbrucas]

Brigham City v Stuart...

You mad bro!!!

The only thing I'm saying is there are many articulable facts that can be made to make it exigent... Neighbor calling in saying someone entered the locate, multiple burglaries in the area, noises heard, ect... Understand the exigent is a perception not written in stone. So someone can present facts to why they felt is was exigent and argue a case.

With that being said, this JBT stuff is ridiculous. I don't go around tugging on unlocked door knobs to make entry into peoples homes. The only time I enter is if it and open door or window and there are signs of a possible offense. Example ransacked house, damage to door or window. Secondly when I enter the house I am strictly looking for persons, nothing else. I clear the house/apt where people can hide then get out and attempt to make contact with resident. I don't open drawers or cabinets that people can't hide in.

I don't walk around crushing the civil liberties of known criminals so why would I enter a possible victims house to try to drop a case on them. I don't period. Hell I don't even write good folks tickets unless they are absolute assholes.

So don't take my post as me saying police have the absolute right to enter anyones house and dig around to find a bogus case. I am merely advising people as to why/what makes it lawful. I don't participate in that and don't believe any LEOs should do this as a way to violate your civil liberties.

Get out of here with that nonsense...who are we gonna vilify now? We need you to be a JBT so we can vent our frustrations out on you...not a normal guy with a badge.

[hustleman]

It is pretty obvious who doesn't "get it" here. The guy who used the word "possibly" to describe something that was "imminent".

Even the Supreme Court case you cited has nothing to do with what you are trying to say. An open window/door is no more an indication of an imminent crime in progress than flowers on the porch. If it was you would be running into every open window you saw, even on your day off. Do you do that?

Apparently u have a very tough time reading. Please defer to my previous post about articulation of facts to imply exigent. Also how exigent is perspective. Man you are so hard headed its ridiculous. As stated previously the cited case is the precedent and different circumstance fall under the umbrella of exigent. Seriously just open your mind to understand what I'm speaking of. I'm not trying to change your mind of your anti-police. Just explaining the reasoning

[Broncojohnny]

I really don't want to get in a pissing match, but the officer could always cite the care taking function.

And that means what in this argument about an "imminent" crime taking place?

Oh yea, it means jack shit. Shut the fuck up, clown. No one cares what you think.

[Broncojohnny]

You clearly don't get it. I'm done with this. You are not understanding the key variable of articulation of facts and the scope of exigent/crime in progress. That case is the precedent and opens avenue for lawful entry.

It is pretty obvious who doesn't "get it" here. The guy who used the word "possibly" to describe something that was "imminent".

Even the Supreme Court case you cited has nothing to do with what you are trying to say. An open window/door is no more an indication of an imminent crime in progress than flowers on the porch. If it was you would be running into every open window you saw, even on your day off. Do you do that?

[hustleman]

I'm pretty sure there's precedent for a lot of violations of rights that the courts upheld. Let's go with actual authority to act.

Well if the court upholds it then isn't that the authority to act? What other recourse beside revolution is there?

[Forever_frost]

I'm pretty sure there's precedent for a lot of violations of rights that the courts upheld. Let's go with actual authority to act.

[hustleman]

[QUOTE=Broncojohnny;1089407]Which was a case where police actually saw an altercation taking place in a house and took action. Thus a crime was "imminent".

So try again.[/


You clearly don't get it. I'm done with this. You are not understanding the key variable of articulation of facts and the scope of exigent/crime in progress. That case is the precedent and opens avenue for lawful entry.

[03trubluGT]

Which was a case where police actually saw an altercation taking place in a house and took action. Thus a crime was "imminent".

So try again.

I really don't want to get in a pissing match, but the officer could always cite the care taking function.

[Broncojohnny]

Brigham City v Stuart...

Which was a case where police actually saw an altercation taking place in a house and took action. Thus a crime was "imminent".

So try again.

[Sean88gt]

I hope we never have to find out. I keep hoping that this Constitutional downward spiral will stop and be reversed but I dont see it happening. I see us going the way of Canada and the UK...which pisses me the Hell off.

It takes a long time for a train to get up to speed, it takes longer to slow it down.

[hustleman]

LOL, that is pretty close.....youre warm.

I dont know how many times ive come on here and said police do not know the laws. Just more proof.

I love how in this JBT's eyes that an open door = imminent robbery in progress.

Apparently fresh air = imminent robbery

the real reason cops walk in open doors is because they are JBT's that have no respect for the fourth amendment, and they believe that it is 'open to the public' . They just want to go in, look around and see who they can arrest. It's your standard book of nefarious shit youre allowed to do when you 'are the law' .
But this JBT doesn't know what fucking case laws actually allow this two bit shit to walk all over your rights. You don't need a big ass brain to figure this out. You just need to throw a lot of parties at apartments!

Oh don't forget to go fuck yourself JBT!

Brigham City v Stuart...

You mad bro!!!

The only thing I'm saying is there are many articulable facts that can be made to make it exigent... Neighbor calling in saying someone entered the locate, multiple burglaries in the area, noises heard, ect... Understand the exigent is a perception not written in stone. So someone can present facts to why they felt is was exigent and argue a case.

With that being said, this JBT stuff is ridiculous. I don't go around tugging on unlocked door knobs to make entry into peoples homes. The only time I enter is if it and open door or window and there are signs of a possible offense. Example ransacked house, damage to door or window. Secondly when I enter the house I am strictly looking for persons, nothing else. I clear the house/apt where people can hide then get out and attempt to make contact with resident. I don't open drawers or cabinets that people can't hide in.

I don't walk around crushing the civil liberties of known criminals so why would I enter a possible victims house to try to drop a case on them. I don't period. Hell I don't even write good folks tickets unless they are absolute assholes.

So don't take my post as me saying police have the absolute right to enter anyones house and dig around to find a bogus case. I am merely advising people as to why/what makes it lawful. I don't participate in that and don't believe any LEOs should do this as a way to violate your civil liberties.